NFL News The Bears appear to be moving to Indiana

[Pape]

The Fenway Park of football?

it put the old in "old school"

 

[Triumph]

I saw Kevin O'Leary on CNN discussing Illinois. It's one of five states that are on very shaky ground. CA, NY, NJ are three of the other four. I forgot the last one.

I am not shocked at all.

# 5 could only be from a short list of candidates. I just returned from CA. They are trying to pass a new tax on CA drivers that will cost them 9 cents per mile to use the roads. Seems that when you mandate that the state is turning EV by a certain date and people go out and buy an EV, that you have a sharp drop in tax revenue from the sale of heavily taxed fossil fuels.

 

[Bill Lee]

Here's my thing, I am fine with taxpayers paying for it, IF the stadium is truly owned by the state/county/town whatever and they can use it to get revenue. I hate this whole "we subsidize these billionaires so they can make money off the stadium". If the team wants to make the gate for 8 days a year fine. But this idea that the team owns the stadium we paid for and makes all the money is ridiculous.

The bottom line to me is, if it was such a great deal the team owners would raise the money themselves.

The fact that they need public money shows it's a money loser.

 

[Gumby]

I saw Kevin O'Leary on CNN discussing Illinois. It's one of five states that are on very shaky ground. CA, NY, NJ are three of the other four. I forgot the last one.

Not 100% sure what you referring to as the „shaky ground.“ is.
- I would guess the #5 would be AZ. But no clue really.
Based purely on economic-politics MN another possible, but Vikes seem stable there regardless of state financial sit.

 

[mgteich]

I saw Kevin O'Leary on CNN discussing Illinois. It's one of five states that are on very shaky ground. CA, NY, NJ are three of the other four. I forgot the last one.

O'Leary believes that 5 states are in terrible finanical shape. His primary issue is real estate. In any case, he recommends that folks move out of CA, ILL, NJ, CT and NY. At very least, he recommends not making investments in those states.

O'Leary believes the best states for real estate and other investments are TX, FL, NC, TEN and AZ.

 

[upstater1]

O'Leary believes that 5 states are in terrible finanical shape. His primary issue is real estate. In any case, he recommends that folks move out of CA, ILL, NJ, CT and NY. At very least, he recommends not making investments in those states.

O'Leary believes the best states for real estate and other investments are TX, FL, NC, TEN and AZ.

Should we have a political discussion on patsfans based on what O'Leary thinks?

 

[patfanken]

Hotel stays are revenue.
Food-bev sales revenue
Internet sales thru the pro shop at stadium COULD be revenue. (?)
Players Income taxes on 8.5 games a year is revenue. Coaches salaries - income = 100% income taxable

Is more than just ticket-gate rev.

You get ZERO revenue BTW from a name change. And ZERO revenue from a team that stays in IL.

There has YET to be a stadium that was partially publicly financed that turned out to be a good deal for the state OR local municipality....EVER. With all the tax revenue from sales and player salaries, etc, states still come out on the short end. I'll bet the only 2 that HAVE worked out for the state and local governments are Gillette and SoFi, both of which were PRIVATELY financed. AND IIRC are the only 2 privately financed stadiums in the league

 

[n1997y]

Should we have a political discussion on patsfans based on what O'Leary thinks?

Apparently we are.

Another reason I’m not on here as much anymore.

 

[The Brandon Five]

"Brandon's doing a great job"

 

[1960Pats]

Not 100% sure what you referring to as the „shaky ground.“ is.
- I would guess the #5 would be AZ. But no clue really.
Based purely on economic-politics MN another possible, but Vikes seem stable there regardless of state financial sit.

O'Leary was talking about the possibility of a recession and how it would cripple those five states.

 

[1960Pats]

Should we have a political discussion on patsfans based on what O'Leary thinks?

Sorry about that. I just responded to one more and that'll be it.

 

[1960Pats]

Apparently we are.

Another reason I’m not on here as much anymore.

I only brought it up because the Bears play in Illinois, which is one of the five states O'Leary mentioned.

 

[upstater1]

I only brought it up because the Bears play in Illinois, which is one of the five states O'Leary mentioned.

Yes but O'Leary doesn't know his arse from his anus.

 

[XLIX]

There has YET to be a stadium that was partially publicly financed that turned out to be a good deal for the state OR local municipality....EVER.

You’re pulling that out of thin air.

Here’s a question no one has ever answered: if it is such a horrible deal, why do states keep doing it? In the past year alone, we’ve seen Kansas and Indiana make plays for NFL teams. We’ve recently seen NY give money to the Bills and Vegas give money to the Raiders. What, do all those states just not like money?

 

[XLIX]

The bottom line to me is, if it was such a great deal the team owners would raise the money themselves.

That’s silly. In many (key word: MANY not ALL) situations, teams are not going to turn down free money, no matter how profitable the new stadiums are.

The fact that they need public money shows it's a money loser.

Just because they take public money does not imply they need public money to be profitable.

 

[n1997y]

The bottom line to me is, if it was such a great deal the team owners would raise the money themselves.

That’s silly. In many (key word: MANY not ALL) situations, teams are not going to turn down free money, no matter how profitable the new stadiums are.

Exactly. Even if it’s not free it can be cheaper money. If the team finances the construction they have to borrow (or dilute equity which they never do for such things). That puts a debt obligation on their books, with debt service at whatever interest rates they get on their commercial paper. Those interest rates are partly based on their debt to equity ratio, which gives them practical incentive to keep debt off their books. If they enter into a rental contract with a public authority that finances and builds the stadium the team has none of that debt on their books, which lowers the cost of any other money they borrow. Plus the authority financing construction may get better interest rates in the markets because it’s a public authority not a commercial entity and those get different debt pricing. Finally, the tax accounting to the team is probably very different between renting the stadium (accounted for as part of annual operating expenses) and debt service financing capex. Ok, not quite finally, that last point really bears on the difference between owning and renting, so if they own they also have depreciation but also responsibility for a raft of things that would be someone else’s headaches if they’re renting.

The fact that they need public money shows it's a money loser.

That’s overly simplistic. The use of public money makes the overall cost structure more efficient. They wouldn’t lose money without the public funding, it would just be more expensive, less efficient, and less profitable.

Just because they take public money does not imply they need public money to be profitable.

They’d be profitable anyway. This way they’re more profitable. Some may think that’s a bad thing.

 

[n1997y]

You’re pulling that out of thin air.

Here’s a question no one has ever answered: if it is such a horrible deal, why do states keep doing it? In the past year alone, we’ve seen Kansas and Indiana make plays for NFL teams. We’ve recently seen NY give money to the Bills and Vegas give money to the Raiders. What, do all those states just not like money?

Yes! Why do they not learn from history?

Rome fell after building the Colosseum.

QED.

 

[bresna]

Wondering why a state wants to keep a team is pretty funny when you look at from the Patriots point of view. If the Patriots leave for a new stadium/state, are any of us ever going to Foxboro Massachusetts again? I know I won't have any reason to.

 

[XLIX]

Wondering why a state wants to keep a team is pretty funny when you look at from the Patriots point of view. If the Patriots leave for a new stadium/state, are any of us ever going to Foxboro Massachusetts again? I know I won't have any reason to.

It’s a boil on the ass of the south side of Boston.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Wondering why a state wants to keep a team is pretty funny when you look at from the Patriots point of view. If the Patriots leave for a new stadium/state, are any of us ever going to Foxboro Massachusetts again? I know I won't have any reason to.

That is exactly the point. Indiana wants to drive people into NW Indiana which is heavily depressed. People would not go to Foxboro? No-one goes to NW Indiana, and that would change with the stadium. Indiana voted unanimously to approve the package and can afford it.

The issue is whether Illinois has the budget to match Indiana and if the Illinois state government officials, who are mostly liberal, will subsidize a billionaire and his football team.